Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: "not only"

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:07:43 EDT

In a message dated 4/20/2001 11:35:06 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> "Only females can get pregnant". This says two things:
> 
> 1. Non-females cannot get pregnant
> 2. * Females can get pregnant
> 
> * is some quantifier. I think it's "su'o".
> 
> (pc disagrees with point 2, if he thinks that olive/wife example is
> 

He thinks it is logically legal and conversationally rude. It is certainly 
not absurd (whatever that means). By the way, he also thinks that 2 is true 
but has nothing to do with the original sentence (rather it has to do with 
the definition of "female" for mammals at least).
Does any of this have anything to do with any of my examples? Remember, by 
the way, that the English example you use is ambiguous, which may be muddling 
you further (though I don't see how).
<ni'o ko zgana le du'u le glico cu casnu le selsnu .i ku'i le lojbo cu
casnu na'ebo le selsnu

ni'o va'o claxu la'e 2mai ku le glico cu tcica .ije no da smuni le lojbo>

How do you observe a proposition? Metaphysical glasses? "The Englishman (&?)
discusses the topic of discussion (what else is possible?) but the Lojbanist 
discusses something else (than what it is discussing - that really does look 
like an absurdity)." Who put foreward this proposition, by the way, that we 
might "observe it" It is certainly an interesting specimen. 
"under conditon lacks referent of second, the Englishman tricks and nothing 
is a meaning of the Lojbanist" doesn't compute, of course, though the 
intention is relatively clear and it is hard to argue with the last sentence.